My post on OPPO cited for copyright infringement: UPDATE

"71MGBGT Likes Subarus of Unusual Colors" (adamprotter) 04/22/2014 at 12:20 • Filed to: None

3

14

Some of you may remember that a little while ago, one of my posts was cited for copyright infringement, and was taken down.

Then I posted here about it getting edited and after a little while, I got a response from Gawker giving me a bit more information.
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

The original photographer just commented on my post saying what's going on, but I think he's grayed out so his response wont really get seen, so I'm putting it here.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Hello to all in this thread about Blue McLaren P1 images that have been extensively taken and used all around the web. I am Altan Omer the photographer who owns the copyright and I am the originator of the images. I thought I should comment in this thread to try to explain the position. I was commissioned by my client Definitive Wax to take the pictures. DW post them where they see fit to further their brand. That is the intended use. The error made by gtspirit, supecarkids, autobestlist, inautonews…and others is that they take the images from one another or from the DW facebook page with no offer or request for usage. That is copyright infringement, they have not asked/negotiated directly for a licence to use to be granted from the copyright owner.

The articles posted are using my images to support their text, that in turn creates an interest and a readership following. Some infringers may just be keenly interested in the cars and are doing things innocently, they are still doing wrong by using the images. Most of the websites in question host advertising and need the traffic to help get the advertising seen and therefore generate an income for themselves. Therefore they are indirectly earning out of images that they have not paid for. At the time the news value of the McL P1 images was high. The blue car was one of the first UK delivered cars and unauthorised use of the images detracts from the exclusivity DW had. The earning potential for the images was not explored as DW had an exclusive licence.

The culture of the web has led to people who just take and re-post without ever questioning if they have a right, or if they should credit the owner. Some infringers have said that it is fair game if it is on the web….No it isn't! If you left the door open at your home is it fair game for me to come in and take your stuff? No it is still stealing. Why not watermark your work you might say? The images were never intended for that and why should I, but we are force to now. Unfortunately when images are uploaded to some online social websites all the metadata contained in the images is stripped out so the trace to the owner becomes difficult.

The worst infringers have taken the images added to their articles and added their own watermark over my images, this passes the work off as their own…blatant breach of copyright! I have met with one infringer the famous Shmee150 who through supercarkids used the images. SCK is associated with Shmee and links to his website. I don't have to explain how these things work, but if you get high hits you can earn from advertising….Visitors to SKC may follow the links from there to elsewhere and someone is earning nicely out of it. Not me the originator and not my client and their brand.

What should have been done by the infringers? Not to breach copyright a link to the images posted by DW would have not damaged any rights. To request use from DW and subsequently me would have been the correct thing to do and to negotiate a use.

All kinds of people generate work, art, books and music all covered by copyright, we are all aware of it but choose these days to take, copy and borrow this makes it harder for the originators to generate an income and to manage the rights of their work.

That is why I spread the word to various sites and was met by sorry, we'll remove them, prove they are yours, etc. All the users could/should be liable to paying for their unauthorised use but unfortunately for me people run and hide.

I ask that these online web magazines introduce checks to make sure they have a rights to the images and copy they use.

Hopefully a happy conclusion; Shmee and others (come forward) will look to make a recompense by giving a link from his/their websites to fine art prints of McL P1 images I have taken, available to order on my website soon.

Altan

Lumpy44, Proprietor Of Fine Gif > 71MGBGT Likes Subarus of Unusual Colors 04/22/2014 at 12:28

0

Release a version with a big watermark on it and give the address to get the image without the watermark for a fee or put a small watermark in the corner. If an image of yours hits the internet without a water mark it is pretty much free game cause you will never track all the copies down.

deekster_caddy > 71MGBGT Likes Subarus of Unusual Colors 04/22/2014 at 12:29

0

It's an excellent and reasonable response by the photographer. Well written. I'm sure that I'm guilty of the same - I just use GIS and paste a link to a picture, just for the sake of having a picture with no thought to whose site it's on or whatever. It's just a good picture. I'm never claiming the image is my own or anything, just sharing something I found. One issue is that you can post a picture as a 'link' but the image does not show as a clickable link, just an image. That means the host is serving up the image without getting the associated article or whatever, which is not good for the host. In that sense, if I post an http link to an image, shouldn't it just be a link?

Of course, I can post a link to just the image itself, and not the page the image came from (which is usually what I do). That makes it harder to see the associated page. Some sites bury the link directly to the picture file, hidden under flash wrappers or whatever, so I move on to find another picture that I can share.

Sn210 > 71MGBGT Likes Subarus of Unusual Colors 04/22/2014 at 12:33

3

what a weird series of events. I get where the photographer is coming from, but to get down to the level of Oppo to place a claim seems like a lot of unnecessary effort. We're just users who post things we like. If anything, the article got a few more reads because of your post. I remember these shots were all over the Internet when these pictures came out.

Forgetful > 71MGBGT Likes Subarus of Unusual Colors 04/22/2014 at 12:46

1

Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.

Would your post not qualify as commentary? Would ' this picture could have come out better had he used a longer exposure ' qualify as criticism?

deekster_caddy > Sn210 04/22/2014 at 12:53

0

But did he post a link to the article? Or just post the image itself. (I think it was just the image, like many of us do)

Sn210 > deekster_caddy 04/22/2014 at 12:59

0

I think you're right, I thought it was the link and the image, but no credit to the photographer. I got called out on it before, after one if my posts went to the FP through Best of Oppo. Someone didn't like that I just GIS'ed and posted the pictures. I cited the sites I used for the info, but not the pics.

Jeremy H formerly Kalakaboooom > Sn210 04/22/2014 at 13:00

0

It kind of seems like to me hes pasting this response in every single car forum he has seen it on, in an effort to maybe get something back out of it? He keeps talking about getting paid back for anyone using his image. I get where he is coming from, but there is a difference between someone making a post that no one gets money from really, and a web site who's sole purpose is automotive news. Like, OP's original post that had the picture, I just checked, has 968 hits.

jariten1781 > Forgetful 04/22/2014 at 13:01

0

Trying to understand Fair Use is a total shit show right now. From what I understand, for commentary or criticism the vast majority of the new work would have to be original. So for your second example you could be like ' this picture could have come out better had he used a longer exposure ' as long as you included a bunch of original shots you took of the same subject with longer exposure to prove your point and successfully claim fair use. In practice though, if you're not print journalism, classroom education, or on broadcast TV your stuff will likely be pulled if you try to use the fair use argument.

deekster_caddy > Sn210 04/22/2014 at 13:02

0

So what's the protocol? I do it with my own images that I host on Flicker. Technically it's violating Flickr's usage agreement, because I'm not linking to their pages - I'm just linking to the image itself. So they aren't getting the advertising $ for my image loads. Is Gawker caching those images or is it actually loading directly from flickr?

I use adblock and click to flash in my browsers anyway, so I'm not supporting any of those sites when I do click the links. So what am I to do?

Sn210 > Jeremy H formerly Kalakaboooom 04/22/2014 at 13:05

0

exactly. If 71mgbgt was a gawker employee, then yeah they defintely should have cited the photographer. Where Oppo is user generated content for fun and sharing opinions and information, seems like a lot if wasted energy to get to this level, months later. It seems like everything was handled right though and it didn't discourage the OP from leaving oppo

Sn210 > deekster_caddy 04/22/2014 at 13:10

1

lol idk man, annotated bibliographies in MLA format like we had to do in high school?

Jeremy H formerly Kalakaboooom > Sn210 04/22/2014 at 13:16

2

Yeah, like I said I understand where the photographer was coming from, and in all honesty the main reason he probably came on here was probably to say hey, I protect my stuff, but this forum is not a malicious forum like some out there, and what 71mgngt did is pretty much the equivalent of finding a picture and sending it to friends, no one gets money from it, no one steals money from another person, it's just a, hey look at this, oh that's cool! Onto looking at the next picture of the car. It seems like this guy has fallen into the same trap that a lot of companies have when it comes to piracy, as in, each pirated download is a lost sale. Not necessarily, a lot of people who pirate wouldn't have bought it anyway. Same principle here, I don't frequent any forums that picture of the car was posted on, but I frequent them here, which means he got more exposure, but unfortunately it kind of seems like he wants to be a dick about it when it comes to getting compensation for it, I mean he pretty much said he expects all people who posted the picture to pay him back some way, which I guess could be fair if it was posted somewhere where it made someone money, but not here. I dunno to me it just seems like a jerk move to come after an Oppo.

71MGBGT Likes Subarus of Unusual Colors > deekster_caddy 04/22/2014 at 13:28

0

you can see most of the original post. I included a link to gtspirit because that's where I found the images, and I thought that Gtspirit was the original source

deekster_caddy > 71MGBGT Likes Subarus of Unusual Colors 04/22/2014 at 13:33

1

Ah. I looked briefly at the original but didn't see that. So at least you included a link to what you thought was the source. So I say the problem is that you were misled by gtspirit.

I'm still unclear on "how" we are supposed to post images without violating some type of end user agreement here. Unless it's your own website with your own image, you are probably violating some kind of end user agreement just for posting a link to the picture (which is displayed without the link).

But is that our fault? Or the way Kinja is written.